>
a Westphalian-Type Sovereignity whereby hard interests decide foreign policy, not human rights concernsWestphalian sovereignty refers to "a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory" [1]. It doesn't support realpolitik nor negate human rights. The only degree to which it intersects with the latter is in arguing against foreign intervention. (Which realpolitik encourages.) It's a concept that was promulgated to integrate previously-independent city states into the larger nation-states and empires of the time.
It's also quite idiotically named, given the actual Peace of Westphalia dealt with foreign powers deciding what to do with the Holy Roman Empire at the end of the Thirty Years' War, with France and Sweden being "recognised as guarantors of the imperial constitution with a right to intercede" [2], sort of the opposite of inviolable sovereignty.
Today, it tends to be something Putin brings up, again, quite idiotically, given he's constantly fucking around in other countries' affairs.
(You're broadly correct that in a Realist international framework the morality of Israel's actions are irrelevant. And that everyone advocating for a multipolar world shifts us in the Realist direction. Practically, however, these are models, not theories, and they coëxist with each other.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia